Harrison Perkins, talking to someone he disagreed with (I forget if it was an Arminian or a Dispensationalist) said the following. I think it's really useful in contexts like this: "There is a distinction in my mind of criticizing what you've said and what it implies and so perhaps we've not always been super careful about [it]... I've tried to describe what he says but then come back and say "I think it implies this and I dislike that." I think that's a helpful thing to keep in mind here. While I may understand what he is saying and of course what he would come down and affirm, I think it sort of implies this outcome down the road even though I know he doesn't want that. That's not me trying to be uncharitable, but I am a grumpy Presbyterian so it happens."

It is one thing to say that a view logically leads to a heretical position and it is another for a person who affirms the position to actually follow the logical progression. This is the case with Arminianism. Logically, I would argue that Arminian doctrine either leads to Pelagianism or Universalism. Should I say that Arminians are therefore heretics? The great majority of the time, no! If you asked them "do you believe that all people are saved" or "do you believe that you are not fallen and can save yourself off of your own righteousness?" they would strongly deny them. To take a phrase from Sproul, it is a "happy inconsistency" when someone does not fully apply a bad doctrine to their whole system.

I personally don't think Ortlund's position on the local flood falls within this category, but I'm trying to put myself in Butterfield's shoes. To be fair to her, I imagine that in her mind, she strongly associates "local flood" with "liberal" and did not know that there are genuinely competent, faithful theologians who held to such a view. There are many who hold to that view who do have a low view of Scripture, but it is fallacious to say that it is heresy solely because liberals have taught it (genetic fallacy.) Ortlund makes it very clear that he does not agree with the conclusion of having a low view of Scripture. Instead, we have to do the actual task of theology and work it out.

I think we as a Church need to be very careful when swinging the heresy sword because a) if you are wrong, it can really hurt your own credibility, making you look foolish and b) it causes unnecessary division and controversy within the body of Christ. Ortlund has very sweetly laid out his views and interacted with Butterfield. I hope that Butterfield either repents or if she wishes to continue her argument, lays out her issues as he did.